On the Dutch wikipedia the default for non-registered users/readers is to have all dead-links to show like this?. On the English Wikipedia, as you all know, the default for non-registered users/readers, is a red link.

There are both pros and cons for both options. A discussion was started on the Dutch Wikipedia and after doing some thinking, I came up with a new linkstyle for deadlinks: like this+. A plus in superscript, same as the ?, but than a +. A very subtile change, but with large pros.

I know this requires a small change in the software, so I'm asking you all to comment in the discussion section below. Don't forget that I want to keep all style-options. So users and/or individual Wikipedias can choose between all options.

Increases accessibility for people who want to (or have to) use the keyboard to follow links (i.e. type in the link text).

Why should that be needed for deadlinks. They still can use tabs.

Increases usability in cases like the "Jump to" window in Opera, or the GetRight Browser, which lists the links on the page by their link text.

See cons +-link

Makes it more obvious to see the extent of the linked text. (While the ?-method is unambiguous with the square brackets around multiple words, it is pretty confusing before you're used to it, and the square brackets are (warning: POV) ugly anyway.)

Sorry not true. There are no square brackets around multiple words with ? or the proposed +.

Looks very cluttered for people who don't know wiki, but are only caring for the content.

Makes people think they can find an answer on the subject when they click the ?. The opposite is the case.

Makes people think they can ask a question when they click the ?.

? stands for a question, not a answer.

Small to click on

Bad for printing. The ?'s are making the printed page less readable.

Kind of defies the original design of the WWW as a hypertext medium.

see cons +-links.

Links would not have meaningful link text, and in fact, many links would have the same link text.

see cons +-links.

Decreases accessibility for people who want to (or have to) use the keyboard to follow links (i.e. type in the link text).

see cons +-links.

Decreases usability in cases like the "Jump to" window in Opera, or the GetRight Browser, which lists the links on the page by their link text.

See cons +-links

In case of single-word links, makes it less obvious to the newbie that it refers to only one word. In case of multi-word links, adds ugly square brackets; makes things look as if they were parenthetical when they're not.

Links would not have meaningful link text, and in fact, many links would have the same link text.

Sorry, but this makes no sense. Please, see ?-links.

Decreases accessibility for people who want to (or have to) use the keyboard to follow links (i.e. type in the link text).

Not true. They are still links.

Decreases usability in cases like the "Jump to" window in Opera, or the GetRight Browser, which lists the links on the page by their link text.

but is that a good thing? Why should deadlinks be listed in a linklist?

In case of single-word links, makes it less obvious to the newbie that it refers to only one word. In case of multi-word links, adds ugly square brackets; makes things look as if they were parenthetical when they're not.

Same with ?-links. With ?-links, square brackets are not there with multiple words.

If you combine the red Link with the superscripted + you combine the pros of each single possibility and in addition you eliminate some of the cons, as i.e. the small to click on -- de:Benutzer:Sansculotte131.246.94.16 02:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but it still makes the text somewhat less readable. -- Timwi 02:54, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't see how... (See below) --IsaacFreeman

A superscripted + is similar to a footnote or asterisk which is standard mark-up. (Especially since wik- ipedia/tionary is being approached as an iterative drafting process.) I also think that a combination of sorts would work, if the bad link page was a little bit more intuitive and newbie-friendly. I.e. have an immediate (but brief) explanation of what they just clicked on, and a short summary of WikiNature (something along the lines of "Being as Wikipedia is a collaberative... ...you could contribute by..." etc) and some links to various "help on editing" and "Wikipedia style" pages, etc... Just a few so as to not clutter the page up. But then at the bottom have a link "Create this page" or something... (I'll post some of this on a few other relevent pages...) --IsaacFreeman

Why not have both? i.e. we currently let logged in users choose between underlines and ?. Why not allow a third option of a superscripted +? Nanobug 12:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)